GERASIMO ANTHONY CONTOMICHALOS, Applicant-Plaintiff v. SAYED MOHAMMED ALI, Respondent-Defendant
Advocate=Representation by wakil-i-Discretion 0/ court
Civil Procedure-s-Representation by wakil
.• Court: Owen C.J. and Gorman J.
The discretion given to the court by section 53, Civil Justice Ordi-
nance J 929 to permit a party 10 be represented by a wakil who is not an
advocate should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, as where
the party is poor and ignorant.
Advocates Ordinance 1935, s. 9 (2).
Civil Justice Ordinance 1929, s. 53.
Revision
December 2, 1933. Gorman J.: The applicant was represented
before us by a wakil, and apparently appeared by the same wakil in
the court below.
The provision of section 53 of the Civil Justice Ordinance is
clear:
"( 1) Save as hereinafter provided, every appearance, ap-
plication or act in or to any Court required or authorised by law
to be made or done by a party in such Court shall be made or
done by the party in person, or in the case of a corporation, by
an officer of the corporation authorised by it, or by an advocate
appointed to act on behalf of such party or corporation."
(2) The Court in its discretion for any sufficient reason may
permit any appearance, application or act as aforesaid to be made
or done througb a duly empowered agent other than an advocate,
and may withdraw such permission at any stage of the proceed-
ings.":
The Ordinance being clear, it is not necessary to enquire into the
reason behind it, but it may be said shortly that the course of the
present proceedings before us exemplified the salutariness of the rule.
No application was made to the Court of Appeal in advance for
permission to be given to the applicant to appear by wakil, and no
special reasons or indeed any reasons whatsoever vouchsafed at any
stage of the proceedings why appearance by wakil should be permitted:
it seems to have been assumed by the applicant and his wakil that
production of a document authorising the wakil to 'act was sufficient.
In order not to delay proceedings and take up the time of the court,
the wakiI was in this case permitted to act, but in my view such a
1 This section was repealed in 1935 and the question of representation by
an agent who is not an advocate is now covered by section 9 (2) of the Advo-
cates Ordinance 1935. The judgement here reponed may be relevant to the latter
provision.
proceeding should not be permitted in future. It is not necessary to
define precisely in what circumstances the court will permit a litigant
so to be represented: such circumstances must be exceptional, for
the Ordinance says that special reasons have to be advanced.' Such
would be that the litigant, being too ignorant a man to put his case
forward properly himself, he was also too poor to employ counsel, or
had to come from a distance and had no opportunity to instruct
counsel before the hearing. But it is hard to imagine any circumstances
sufficient to support such an application where a litigant is a local
inhabitant and a man of standing, and the litigation an ordinary every-
day action of ejectment. For my part I will not agree to any ap-
pearance by wakil in cases like this in future. The litigant must
appear in person or by counsel.
Owen C.J.: I agree with the observations of Judge Gorman on
the propriety of representation by wakils in cases of this sort.
Application allowed in part